Thanks Khamsing! I appreciate the love :)

I'd definitely consider it, exploitatively, you can see that my opponent is basically 100% bluffing range here.

In theory, 1-alpha (using MoP language).

Basically the amount to make villain indifferent with bluffs. So, if villain is betting full pot, he is betting 1 to win 1. To be indifferent, his bluffs need to win this half the time, so you should be calling 50%. Or, if you're playing limit and villain is betting an 8th of the pot, he's risking 1 to win 8 -- that means to make him indifferent, he needs to win with those bluffs 1/9 of the time. So, you should be defending like 89% of the time. (Sometimes people try to give some formula for computing 1-alpha... don't worry about that -- just think about what odds your opponent is laying themselves with the bet.)

Of course, that's all in wacky vacuum theory land and it's not even 100% accurate. It would be totally accurate if you had all bluff catchers and he had a polarized range... In real life, you probably want to overfold sometimes when you think villain lacks of bluffs and overcall when you think he has too many bluffs.

Radtupperware answer is very good. A couple of things, I'd add.

Depends really heavily on previous streets play. If it was checked down to the river and ranges were reasonably equal, then it would be MDF.

Otherwise it's going to vary significantly based on range vs range interaction. In an extreme example on AAAAK, we would always call. In another extreme example where our opponents range has no bluffs (think every major draw completed which villain was semibluffing with), we would always fold.

There are literally millions of these spots, so it's not terribly easy to give an easy answer.

On Bovada, you download the hand history 24 hours after the game and it includes all hole cards.

Hey, this is pure theory land, but yes 7x would be a better call. I don't really block his bluffing range, so 99 should be a marginal call/fold. I think PIO only calls spades here, which would be a fine randomizer, so I'd fold 99 next time.

Because you can close the action with a call. Re-opening the action allows 4 bets that cause us to forfeit large parts of the equity of a lineal range if villain chooses that option.

I think that people found flatting out of the SB uncomfortable, so they moved to a 3-bet or fold strategy, which in turn made folding KsTs but 3-betting 9s6s illogical. In the BB, the older strategy of calling KsTs, but 3-betting 9s6s still made sense, because as Rosebud correctly states "KsTs would lose more equity folding to the 4-bet".

4-bet rates on the button at small-stakes are under 10%, so I personally don't think that it's worth the EV penalty that flatting KsTs incurs, but the solvers tend to mix these hands, so it's very close and should eventually be villain dependent.

Wouldn't 3 betting a lot in the SB of a linear range and folding to 4 bet be the same thing? Yes, one more person to act behind that you give pot odds to. If we use KTs as the example, we narrow btn's range and btn likely calls with a range that crushes us. At least in terms of 3 betting recs. Where flatting keeps dominated hands in like T7s or K4s where we may win more money postflop.

The games I play will be 2.5-3bb open and sb 10-12bb 3bet. Pretty standard. However postflop is not standard, they just smash 50-100% pot if the board favors their hand or as a bluff. There is not much 1\3 cbets at all, even in 4 bet pots.

Tyler Forrester hopefully you can clear up some of this confusion.

RunItTw1ce

In a lot situations flatting a small suited broadway or 3-betting are similar values. The arguments in favor of 3-betting:

1) 3-betting in high rake environments like small stakes is better, because you don't pay rake when they fold preflop, so you actually pay less rake overall and keep more of the money you win.

2) Not closing the action means that you likely let the big blind win back more money when you flat then when you 3-bet. Additionally, an aggressive big blind will heavily cut your flattening profits, by squeezing aggressively. Everytime you make a marginal call/fold with KTs against the 3-bet, you've lost 2.5 big blinds and those 3-bets happen 3x as often as 4-bets.

The argument for flattening is lower standard deviation (smaller swings) and maybe some more mistakes postflop from your opponents like stacking weak one pairs when you flop two pairs. Structurally I don't think them having 95s here IP is necessarily an advantage for you, because they have a high-equity semibluff against your hand and positional advantage.

I hope that helps.

I agree. I mentioned in a previous post that I would have preferred folding. It's very close though in practice. Basically, lots of players will continue barreling here, because if I fold all my pocket pairs, the bluff is profitable.

Thanks cmacsj!

Thanks for the love, OMG!

There is absolutely no question that at equilibrium blockers are extremely important.

But the more important ideas imo are :

1) Is the decision actually close? Often times, they aren't. If they aren't it doesn't really matter.

2) If I only call one type of blocker region say a spade, then I might open myself to exploitation from a player who is aware of the blocker region, I'm calling.

I called a spot with TcTd on 9c3h2cKcKs board couple days ago because 3bet pot and I "block" so many flushes T9c, JTc, QTc, ATc etc in calling range. Other part of my mind said fish don't shove river here after calling flop and barreling turn as a bluff. So mindset battle of blocker vs tendency. i went with a call and was shown 5c4c. Have to remember fish dont care about how high or low their flush is. Its a flush so they shove.

Any thoughts on this? Tyler Forrester

RunItTw1ce - That's exactly a problem that I've seen, and have stupidly done. I think that understanding our opponent's general poker abilities is the #1 determining factor in how important even considering blockers is. Like Tyler said, if the decision isn't close, like in my following anecdote, then they don't matter, but overall and against a well-formulated strategy or at equilibrium, they are quite important.

Stupid me:
In a casino at a $1-$2 table against a whale, I called down with a bluff-catcher against his 3rd barrel that everyone at the table knew was value because I had the absolute best bluff-catch hand you could have in that spot. Everyone knew he wasn't bluffing; everyone. But I thought, "If I fold the best bluff-catcher I will ever have here, I am getting owned." So I called and saw what we already knew, and he bought himself an overpriced sandwich with my foolish donation.

OMGIsildurrrrman12 we both paid for a lot of lunches and dinners due to MDF and blockers. At some point "math is idiot" -Berry Greenstein

RunItTw1ce

This is where old-time pros say "It depends".

Usually, the fish makes the decision for us. Fish often choose strategies where the bluff a lot or bluff a little and this dictated by mood rather than by card choice.

Against a reg, who is trying to bluff roughly optimally, then the Tc would have a big impact on his bluffing frequency.